I always ignore power savings requests. If they really can’t serve the population, they need to make more power. If we all turn down our usage to make it work, they won’t make more.

Also, the restaurant probably has no control over those numbers. The software might give them a Yes/No option on showing suggested tips or not at best.

What about everyone buy a share of thier stock. Then sue thier board for ignoring thier fiduciary duty to the shareholders. Turning down business is bad for revenue… and the games that got removed probably made decent money all together.

I’m not sure it actually is. No law against it. It’s a huge flaw in the system that the people elected also decide how the election works.

When the stakes are high, attempting to push every line is expected. Some say “if you aren’t cheating, are you even trying?”

This system will simply never be fair. It needs to be replaced.

Feels kinda unconstitutional to me. They could say you can’t sell it for consumption, but not sell it at all seems like an overstep.

ONLY 120 pages. I’ve seen my file, those are rookie numbers.

Meh… this is technically the right thing to do. First, it only applies in Texas. Second, right or wrong, it seems leaving thier posts when ordered back is “technically” illegal, again, only in texas for them. Paying someone to break the law is usually illegal. I am only a little fuzzy of if there is a real texas law about them needing to come back when ordered. It’s been hard to tell if that is a law or a “rule” of the state congress.

This issue is not so cut and dry. The AI companies are stealing from other companies more than ftom individual people. Publishing companies are owned by some very rich people. And they want thier cut.

This case may have started out with authors, but it is mentioned that it could turn into publishing companies vs AI companies.

Soldiers are people to. They have the same potential to go postal as everybody else. They probably also have less access to mental healthcare due to stigma in the profession.

2. I’m a devops engineer. I personally haven’t written code to do this, but it isn’t something that hasn’t been done before. Just take all possible combinations of candidates and use thier answers to compute the percentage that answered a given way for each question foreach combination. Do the same with the voting results. Then compare the % of the population to the % of each combination to get a set of differences for each combination. For small states you probably need to increase the number of seats to some minimum like 20 or more. For big states you will probably get a match with a tolerance of +/- 1%. For others you will have to iterate the tolerance up until you get a match.

If you want to get a better match, you could make the number of cadadites selected dynamic. And personally I support having a larger number as it reduces the power of anyone individual. Then the reps from the state can vote on any issue, and the states votes can be distributed to represnt the votes of the many representatives.

The idea is a group that actually represents the views of the people they represent istead of special interests.

1. I disagree that answering the questions have to be harder. They don’t have to be so specific that they require a solid grasp. They should be more like do you agree with doing X. Not “choose the best way to solve the homeless crisis”.

2. You’re overthinking it. You take each question and determine what % of the population answered each way. Then you choose multiple cadadites such that together roughly the same % of the cadadites answered the same way as the people. So yes you should end up with representatives on opposite sides of the issue if people voted that way. The idea is that the representatives as a whole accurately represent the people. And like I said, in a small population state that may be a challenge. But there are ways to work around that.

3. I don’t think a direct democracy is better. In a dd, money determines what gets voted on. And there are less things voted on in general, so money can sway the people a lot. When the number of questions is higher and all at once, money has a hard time focusing a message on them all. And even after that, the answering of the questions chooses a rep who is able to learn enough aboutvit to be less likely to be swayed by money. A large part of that is that they need no campaign, so they don’t have to serve the money to get reelected.

I’m not saying it perfect, but the general idea is to get people who represent the opinions of the people, not popularity contest winners. And to reduce the money connection to poloticians votes. Also, you don’t need a “party” at all.

1, it is actually less complex for the voter. Right now they don’t kniw much about who/what they are voting for because all the info they get is marketing. But a question about homelessness or crime they probably feel more confident in thier answer. Plus many people don’t vote because thier options are all liars. The reps in this case don’t have to be popular, so they don’t have to lie. 2 in very small states it might be tough, but an algorithm can find the closest match by simply trying all the combinations. For a computer that will be a very simple task. And it could even print them all out for anyone to validate. 3 this for sure is the hardest part. Probably some kind of public proposal and polling combo would be needed. Btw, at work we were told to use numbers instead of bullets because it makes referring to a point much easier.

My daughter has entered the chat bro.

What if everybody just votes thier opinion on a set of issues. The cadadites have to declare thier opinion on the same set. When the voting is done, the percentages are calculated for all the issues. Then a computer program picks a list of cadidates such the they together match the distribution of the voters.

Trump supporters believe beyond a reasonable doubt that it is all fake news.

CEO = Marketing with a different title. Trust the words out of their mouths the same.

I am saying sex need not occur before love because they aren’t connected.

Nah, for guys, love and sex simply aren’t connected early on.

Meh, texas ain’t the first state to go through these motions. Oregon did similar but with the roles reversed a year or two ago. And they weren’t the first either.

Yep, always a balancing act. And of course they tend to make sure thier is a scapegoat so it won’t be thier heads that roll. I bet they really love trump for how well he draws attention to himself and off of them.